tv Charlie Rose PBS January 9, 2014 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
. >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with two items high on the priority list for secretary of state john kerry, they are iran and the israeli-palestinian conversations, we start with iran and their ambassador to the united nations, mohammed khazaee. it is a possibility for cooperation between the two countries or not? this is something that can be sneen the future. it depends on many other issue but we are not relying on cooperating with the united states on this particular matter or another country, this is the principle of foreign policy to try to achieve the region iraq in particular secure and stable and we are offering on the iraqi government to do it. >> and for perspective on the israeli paisraeli-palestinian ns a second item on secretary
kerry's agenda we ten to riyad mansour, the permanent representative of the palestinians to the united nations. >> it is up to them to decide what kind of a state they want to be, do they want to be a democratic state where i see ail will be the state for all of its citizens or do they want to be a state for the jewish people and, therefore, excluding 1.6 million palestinian arabs who are israelis from their society. that debate is not our debate. that debate is their debate. >> rose: it is your debate if in fact they insist that you recognize them as a jewish state. >> >> rose: as part of the agreement. >> president abbas and the palestinian leadership as far as i know they are, their declared position is we will not accept that demand on us. >> rose: two important items on the international agenda, the iran interim agreement and negotiations between israelis and the palestinians, next. >> funding for charlie rose but provided by the following.
>> there is a saying around here, you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses. we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it is needed most, but i know will you will still find it when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services w captioning sponsored by
rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. don't want to give theiranianso plowt the agreement. it could lead our international partners to think we are not an honest broker and we didn't mean it when we said sanctions were not an end in and of themselves but a tool to pressure the iranians into a diplomatic solution. well we are in that. >> rose: ambassador mohammed khazaee is here, he is ambassador to the united nations in has been a thaw in relations between the united states and iran since the election of hasan rouhani, there was a the breakthrough in iran's nuclear program, now the two cubs face a common threat, extremist sunni militants who are active from lebanon to iraq to syria, it remains to be seen whether this common enemy will force greater cooperation, both are on the opposite sides of the civil war
in syria, many believe iran wants to keep bashar al-assad in power. >> i am pleased to have the ambassador back at this table. thank you. >> it is a pleasure to be here with you again i think for the third time. >> third time indeed. and had a number of visits today ran. so here it is. this idea that the united states and iran might have a common interest. tell me how you see this from the iranian perspective. >> thank you. obviously you may point out some common interests in the region as there are some other issues around the world between iran and the united states. but i have to mention here that
the cooperation between the two countries on those common interests is another issue. basically, the iranian foreign policy and our president's, and our presence in the region is based on the principles that we believe in. in some areas may be welcomed by other countries and sometimes to the united states it may not be welcome to them or their policies are not welcome to us. on this particular issue that you mentioned in the introduction of the program tonight i have to say that defeating extremist groups, violence and terrorist groups activity in the region is of, officially in our region is something that the i see ram prick, islamic republic of iran has always been trying to work on that. in the case of afghanistan, you
remember very well that we have been fighting with the extremist groups. the united states, they are doing the same thing, and in some point we have worked together which you know the history. on the issue of iraq situation today also we are witnessing that the country is threatened by extremist groups and terrorist groups. that is very important for iran to try to get the iraqi government to a civilized state. more than the united states and iran, as an immediate neighbor security and stability is very important to us. so regardless of the position of the united states, we see an extremist group in the region and "iraq that could be singled out to our position but we are doing our best to help the iraqi government to overcome the problem that they have. the question is, does it mean
there is a possibility for cooperation between the two countries or not? this is something that is to be seen in the future. it depends on many other issues, but we are not relying on cooperating with the united states on this particular matter or any other country. there is the principle of foreign policy to try to achieve the region and iraq in particular secure and stable and we are offering on, we are offering the iraqi government to do it. how much is sunni versus shy a shia? >> our experience in iran and the history of the islamic world shows sunni and shia have never been fighting against each other, officially in iran we don't have any such history. >> certainly. >> but the point is, the point is that mainly i think some in the world are trying to show that this is a fight between sunni and shia.
even if they are right, we have to try to stop it, so you are aware you have a very good relation with sunni in iraq and we have good relation with sunnis in other parts of the region, we are palestinians are totally sunnis but we have to, as we said lack at the issue as a dangerous impediment in the world that should be defeated by everybody. that is why we introduced the resolution world against violence and extremism in the general assembly which all members of the member states welcome that. >> rose: at the same time, you support hezbollah. >> uh-huh. >> and one of the reasons why you want to say assad stay in power is because it gives you access to send arms and other material to hezbollah in lebanon, correct? >> this is not the whole story. the story is that syria, iran
during the iraq-iran war and they helped us a lot. what we said about syria is the stability and, it is very important for us and in the region, stability, so, therefore, this is the responsibility of syrian people to decide about themselves. so that is why we have supported any kind of initiative to stop the bloodshed in syria and bring closure together to the real open position groups, not sunni groups and terrorist groups, the real opposition group with is syrian government to solve their problem and come up with what they want to see for the future of the country. >> rose: how strong is the commitment to the individual bashar al-assad, the president of syria? >> i mean, would you and i mean would iran be part of some negotiation that would witness his removal from power if there was a division of power in
syria? >> i don't believe that based on any international law and regulations any country has any right to decide about the government, the kind of government in another country. what needs to happen in syria should be syrian led actually negotiation, decision, and this is as i mentioned the responsibility of syrian people to decide. if they want to go along with bashar al-assad's government or they want to choose another one. we have not -- we should not force them to do something that they may not want it. if they want it, it is up to -- >> rose: but you are not necessarily predisposed to that government being led by bashar al-assad? >> we do not dictate anything on the syrian people and we should not dictate -- >> rose: do you have your preferences. >> and this is what we advise to other countries as well. >> rose: how much of what is
happening in the middle east is a contest for supremacy in the gulf? >> the persian gulf. >> rose: the persian gulf? you never miss the chance to see it is the persian gulf. >> of course it is the persian gulf for thousands of years. >> much of the conflict in the persian gulf is between the desire to be the dominant player between saudi arabia and iran? >> where is that as a factor today? >> >> talking to you is not an easy thing, charlie. let me say two facts here. the first fact is that we have not and we are not trying to dominate the region. and despite some disputes and
misunderstandings between iran and a couple of countries in the region. >> rose: the emirates, saudi arabia. >> i don't want to mention any countries. whatever. >> rose: bahrain. >> we have tried to maintain a good relation between iran and especially muslim countries. it has been said by iranian authorities, especially by president rouhani and others that we have to try to have a normal and good and broad relation with all of these muslim countries, especially the countries that you mentioned. so this is the foreign policy, iranian foreign policy principles. the other is, iran is a powerful country in the region nobody can deny it. the problem is that iran is a powerful country and iran has a long history and so on it doesn't mean that iranians are looking for a kind of supremacy or dominating the region.
even if you look at the situation for the last couple of decades, you will see that we have been trying to bring peace and security among different countries, including some disputes among serious countries in the world, and i do not believe and totally reject any idea that suggests that the iranians are trying to dominate the region or impose their political views on other countries. >> rose: is the war in syria a proxy war between saudi arabia and qatar and iran and hea hezbollah? >> what we see today is that ways based on what i behold that every day almost close to 100 people are above opposition groups are killed by each other. they attack each other rather than fighting with the government. >> rose: that seems to be the new phenomenon. >> exactly the new phenomenon.
so what is going on? some people may call it a proxy war but it is not really a proxy war. it is an unfortunate situation in syria that people are killing each other even those terrorist groups, opposition groups, even if they are not able to decide if they want to attend a conference or not. so this is the situation. we have to try to avoid really, from, avoid any kind of proxy war in syria. we have to get together to stop the bloodshed in syria. let me tell you something. when secretary-general ba. ban si moon was at the head of states meeting and met the extreme leader rouhani and asked his views about syria, i remember well, because i was in that meeting that the extreme leader, supreme leader i think the first priority for syria, and you must say to the united
nations is to how to stop the bloodshed and killing in syria, then it would pave the ground for all of us to help the syrian people to decide about what they want to do. so this is the real problem. >> rose: but are you doing that if you have the head of the forces in damascus in some ways directing forces against the rebels? >> i do not have any information to suggest or endorse that iranian forces are leading in syria. >> rose: but but there is a presence. there have been reports about that -- >> i don't have reports of that and i cannot confirm it. >> rose: but you are not denying it. >> but you know thousand of members and other terrorist groups from yemen and some other places are sending to syria by some countries in the region, even if iran has -- >> rose: what do you he their
interest is? why are they doing that? >> to destabilize the syrian. >> rose: to destabilize the government. >> syria. >> rose: yes. syria. so it will become what? a failed state? a state that will be susceptible to a kind of nation state under the control of the most radical elements of -- >> if you want to discuss about this issue, which is very important, and i appreciate that, we have to speak about it for hours. we have to look at the role of syrians in the region for the last hundreds of year. you have to look at the threat coming from the israelis in the region. you have to look at the relation between syria on lebanon, syria on its neighbors and all of these things. this is not something to describe it in a short interview. >> rose: right. >> but the point which i want to make that the support of iran,
political support of iran, of syrian and dealing with syrian government is very legitimate, the syrian government is a government that so far has a seat in the united nations, a representative in the united nations, is recognized by the international community as a government. there are some problems over there, of course nobody denies and can deny it. the most important thing is that we have to help people of syria, as far as humanitarian aid is concerned, as far as -- >> rose: so does iran support what russia and the united states are trying to do with respect to the chemical weapons and getting them out of the country. >> we did it. >> rose:. >> exactly. >> rose: and to develop some kind of dialogue that will lead to, on january 22nd, some conversations in gentleman they extra and does iran want to participant as secretary of state kerry said they could be on the side lines of --
>> okay. >> rose: what does iran want to get out of geneva? >> i think you are very well aware we and the russians work together to, unfortunately we succeeded and we ask the government to come to about elimination of the chemical weapon, becaus because we know e iranians have been the victim of chemical weapons so we should not, iran in this, but -- so, therefore we have been working and pushing for it and fortunately the chemical weapon issue in syria is now going to be -- >> rose: but they haven't met the deadline. >> but anyway this is something that we and the russians are working to the on that, and it should be appreciated. but on the syrian situation and on geneva 2 talks we have said and repeated that we already, we are ready to participate in geneva two conference and we are ready to offer any kind of help that we can do.
>> rose: so what do you hope, what does your government hopes comes out of the geneva two conference? one is getting the chemical weapons out of syria. >> that's a part of tissue and another issue. >> rose: so what do you -- i free, it is part of it because chemical weapons but the incentive to get the deal going. >> exactly. >> so what is the end game? >> the end game in our view is that the syrian government and syrian real opposition they have to get together and other countries have to help them to do. >> rose: to do what? to create what? >> first of all to stop the bloodshed. then to faif ground for the people of syria to decide for their future. is it possible or not? i don't know. as far as the iranian participation is concerned, we said we are ready to participant. participate. the participation, our name is not on the list, participation at the sideline is something we have have to travel later on to see how --
>> rose: so you might be willing to accept participation on the sideline? >> i would rather to wait and see what is the result of the general -- >> rose: but the idea that you hope, your government hopes is some kind of, a, end of bloodshed? >> for sure. >> rose: two, see somewhat? some -- >> some kind of government i can understand -- >> rose: between the rebels and -- >> the citizens. >> rose: and the syrian government. >> and the syrian government to come up with a plan for the future of what they want to do and whatever is going to be decided should be a syrian led political solution. >> rose: and if it means the exit of bashar al-assad, decided by those people, then so be it? >> i don't think that any country has the right to decide about the government of another country to tell them to go or to stay. >> rose: characterize for me the agreement between iran and the united states, this
so-called interim agreement for six months. >> rose: because -- >> yes. >> rose: i sat with people over the holidays, this was always the conversation. what did the iranians give up? in terms of the development of their nuclear program, in terms of having the capacity and the centrifuges and the plutonium at one facility, to create nuclear energy and possibly nuclear weapons? >> did they give up anything? >> should they give up anything? >> rose: i thought it was an agreement. you got something you wanted. >> no. >> rose: the reduction of sanctions. >> okay. look, first of all, that is a good question, in i way. and i know using the mind of some is in the mind of some pus
eople. the first issue is whatever iranians have been doing in the nuclear peaceful program, it is their right based on mpt and they have not done anything wrong. >> rose: nonproliferation treaty. >> exactly. and it has been mentioned several times by the agency this is he have not found any diversion in the iranian nuclear activity. on the other hand, the second issue is, sanctions against iran, in principle are against international rules and regulations and are inhumane. they are hurting people. so first of all the they cannot compare that to each other. but the point is, you remember that -- >> rose: they are also hurting the government. >> we said it, several times by the -- other authorities in iran, especially again with president rouhani, that we have
the right to be able to enrich uranium. >> the secretary of state said that agreement did not give you the right to enrich uranium. >> but it does not say we don't have. it doesn't say -- you know this is not something that the united states can determine whether we have the right or not. okay? the point is, the point is that, okay, we needed 20 percent enriched uranium for tehran research reactor, you remember very well that we said before, we requested from the agency to give it to us and so on, so the main point is that if the concern of the united states and some other countries is that iranians may acquire the capability or the power to build a bomb or something like that and the transparency -- >> rose: or had the capacity to get there very quickly. >> capacity is something as i remember, that even president obama has mentioned is not something today you can hide it from anybody. the point is, the point is that if as they say they are
concerned about iron jab, iranian nuclear program to make a bomb or .. something like that, we said, okay, since we do not have such an intention and we did not have and it is not in our policy we are ready to cooperate with you and make it clear with queue that the nuclear program is peaceful and is france parent so in that regard if there are some problems, we are ready to discuss with you. so i think that is a fine negotiation team is clear to remove these concerns. look, we do not have a bomb or something to be removed or dismantled or something like that. >> no one is suggesting that. even americans like secretary panetta would say we don't plea we have the nuclear -- >> so the issue on the problem is mistrust and suspicion and this kind of thing. >> rose: right. >> and we believe by negotiation, we can remove those kind of concerns. >> rose: so that is the
benefit of the interim agreement, you can by now find some reason to develop through, as reagan would say trust and verify, some reason to trust? >> exactly. >> rose: each other? >> exactly. that's the main point in my view. >> rose: how does iran convince others that it can does not want enrichment of uranium because it wants a nuclear bomb but wants to do it for peaceful purposes? >> i think at least the last 34, 35 years of iranian history as well as the negotiate quaition that we had before, and all the reports by the agency, have made it clear for everybody -- >> rose: no, it hasn't with respect, it has done exactly the opposite. it has convinced more people that your intent, because of not fully disclosing, because of things that would become, be
revealed, that the international community didn't know about, so it is that history that causes people to be -- >> you know the funny thing is that these kind of allegations or suspicions come from those countries in a regime in the region that they already have nuclear bombs. >> rose: fair enough. >> okay? >> rose: fair enough. so if they are really, really are against these things, they have to first of all do something about their own programs. okay. there are some suspicions, we have said we are ready t ready o as much as we can to tell you to make it clear for you if you are really ready to work with us. but, you know, the problem is that we cannot trust fully the other side. >> rose: the other side saying
they can't fully trust you? >> of course. what they are really ready to accept positive, take positive stems forward. fortunately so far, negotiation between iranian and -- were positive, they have taken positive steps. >> rose: since the election of hasan rouhani. >> of course. and we are very much hopeful that tomorrow's meeting between -- you know, will be successful. >> rose: the germans and americans. >> exactly. so, therefore, let's lack at the future, to see what we can do together. we know about ourselves we do not have my intention to do it. we have shown it. if there are some problems in some other part of the world and they have some suspicious let's work together to -- >> rose: let the press come in as well? >> yes. >> rose: and i know you have to go and i just want to stay with this idea and this is an important idea.
>> but you are not negotiating the nuclear issue and i am not a part of the negotiation team so i can't -- into absolutely. and that is clear. >> thank you. >> rose: did something happen in iran with the election of hasan rouhani? did that reflect or create change? and what does it represent? >> clearly they are still opposing and competing forces, as there are republicans and democrats in america. >> yes. >> and labor and tori in britain, for example. but what did it represent? and how strong is it? .. because everybody knows the ultimate power in iran is with the supreme leader, and it seems that he has said let's see where
these negotiations are go. go make a deal. help me understand this. >> again, i have to talk for hours, but i think the election in iran that president rouhani was elected, with a good, good majority supported him, is a clear indication that iranian system works and we are experiencing a kind of democracy that in the region is unique, you know very well. it should be appreciated. of course, of course what happened in iran that should be seen by international community is that, first of all, iranian
political seasonal is alive like some other countries that they have a democracy, they have opponents, groups, different parties and so on, and also the iranian people have decided to support the islamic republic and the system that they believe in. so the result of the election actually empowered iranian and islamic republic to fulfill what iranians want and also to be seen in the region and internationally, in the international community as a power that can help the world. and i think the response that we got from the general assembly on the, the resolution shows that the united nations and the
international community have understood the mental that came from the election. it was a big, big thing in my view. i should say a phenomenon in iran and also proved that iranians are trying to support the system by electing the right people and the right person and also they are serious to continue the iranian future. >> rose: mr. mann sour, mr. mohammed khazaee, thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> the ambassador of iran to the united nations, back in a moment. stay with us. >> but i will say that we are working with countries, with serious purpose, with a commitment to try and resolve this conflict that has gone on for many years tomorrow.
and which i think prepresent us now with a possibility of trying to find a framework agreement which would really lay out the end game. >> rose: for deablgs american diplomats have attempted to broker a palestinian israeli peace deal after a three-year hiatus, secretary john kerry tried to kick start it this in july, he said any framework would be fair and balanced, joined me is riyad mansour, he has been palestine's permanent observer to the united nations since 2005. i am pleased to welcome him to this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. >> rose: so where are we? at this cherry initiative. >> well, one should admire that, the tenacity and determination of secretary of state kerry, in visiting this region, almost on
a weekly basis or every two weeks and he is determined to try to deal with all the thoroughly complicated issues and to accomplish the objective of the occupation that started in 1967 and to allow for the independence of the state of palestine so that we can have the objective of a two-state solution. >> rose: right. >> there are a tremendous amount of challenges before him, but yet he is determine to try to resolve these challenges and we sincerely hope he succeeds in that objective. >> rose: what do we know about what he is trying to do? for example, clearly an israeli objective is some kind of israeli defense forces in the jordan river valley, correct? that's an israeli object if the and it seems to be part of the conversation. >> yes. but for us, you know, we say
that if the objective is to enthe occupation that started in the 4th of june of 1967, and in order to allow for the two-state solution, one state has been in existence since 1948, the other one is struggling for independence. if we want to end the occupation, it means that we have to prepare the atmosphere in both sides to be ready for removing all of the institutions and occupation. so this with regard to security in the jordan valley, president abbas said more than one time, if we want to end the occupation, then israel is occupying cannot remain in the jordan valley. we accept the presence of a third party presence there, including american forces, all of them to be on our side and to
stay for a reasonable amount of time that we mutually agree upon. >> rose: but you don't accept simply the presence of israeli troops? >> if we accept the presence of the israeli troops to be with us then we are not accomplishing the objective of ending the occupation. we have to make up our mind. if w we want to enthe occupation then we cannot keep the forces of the occupying power in our land. >> rose: and one issue that all come up is israelis talking about their security and you would argue that security would be guaranteed by the presence of some international force? >> along. yes. >> along the jordan river. >> since that is their objective and they don't trust anyone we said why don't we have a third, you know, party force to be there? and a u.n. force, a combination of u.n., nato forces, it is working in southern lebanon, it is working in the sinai, why shouldn't it work between us, between the state of palestine and the state of israel? >> we know that gaza is
controlled by hamas, correct? >> yes. >> israelis constantly make this point in conversations with me and other journalists and in public forum. we ended the occupation of gaza and look what happened. what do you say to them? >> well, first of all we told the israeli authorities in the year 2005, let us negotiate the withdrawal from gaza. they refused to do that and they did a unilateral redeployment of their forces. >> rose:. >> so that was a unilateral action by them, so they are responsible for this unilateral action. however, we are saying that if we have peace with them, that we can resolve all final status issues and end this occupation and allow for the independence of the state of palestine then i think that all the issue that never raising with regard to in the only the gaza strip but to
the other part of the occupied palestinian territory will enter into a new stage of phasing them out and, therefore, the worries that the israelis have will start to evaporate. >> rose: how reasonable is it do you think for secretary kerry to achieve his objective within the time frame he has set? it seems like an insurmountable task. >> well, i think that he may perhaps, made a slight change in the course. >> rose: right. >> we were under the impression that between six to nine months we will reach a peace treaty on all final status issues, the six of them, the borders, the security, jerusalem, settlements, water and refugees. now the discussions that are presented by secretary of state is talking about a framework, which a framework is like
parameters, and if he wants to accomplish the objective of having an agreement on the parameter in the next few months before the expiration of the nine month, then it will be obvious that we need additional time, he needs additional time and the parties need additional time to negotiate a final treaty based on the framework of the parameter, so that is wha what - what he is trying to accomplish now is an agreement of a framework, timetable of maybe, tighter than previous agreements, including the oslo agreements, clearer, more precise, i think, so this is what he is trying to accomplish from now until april. >> rose: what do you -- many people talk about the demographic argument, and they talk about the fact that they are increasingly a larger number
of people believe that the idea of a two-state solution is slipping away. do you share that view? and what are the implications of a one state solution? >> i think that the extremists in israel, particularly those who are supporting the colonization and settlement enterprise are creating realities on the ground that is making it difficult for the two state solution to be the solution that should be put in place. in spite of that objective that they don't want to allow palestinian state to acquire its independence next to israel, here we are talking about the west bank, including jerusalem and the gaza strip, 22 pattern of the land. if they do not pave the way for the separation and for the two-state solution to take place, then there are -- they
are digging the ground for the possibility of one state solution because the palestinian people, this time they are not going to leave their land. they are staying there. of course the problems that they will face is that if all of us live in historic palestine and then the democrat nothing by the is approximately now about 50-50 in terms of palestinian, arabs, versus jews in the same area, then the -- this would be the defeating, i believe, the objectives of trying to build, you know, a state where the majority will be jewish. >> rose: do you have any problem with calling israel a jewish state? >> israel can call itself whatever it wants. president abbas, i was in meetings with him with many jewish leaders, including in this city of new york, more than once and they asked him this question, he said it is up to israel to call itself what they want. they can go and change their name and go to the u.n. and you
have the interview with the iranian ambassador here. >> rose: yes. >> the iranians changed the name of the revolution to the islamic republic of iran, that is their by, it is not our business, but for us to demapped from us to accept this name, it means that they have additional agenda inside -- >> rose:. >> what do you think that agenda is? >> it means that they have a historical claim to that land and we have no right to be in the same land, including palestinian -- 1.6 million palestinian arabs who are israeli citizen that is a debate taking place inside of israel. it is up to them to decide what kind of a state they want to be. do they want to be a democratic state where israel willable the state for all of its situates or do they want to be a state for the jewish people and, therefore, excluding 1.6 million palestinian arabs who are israelis from their society. that debate is not our debate. that debate is their debate. >> rose: it is your debate if
in fact they insist that you recognize them as a jewish state. as part of the agreement. president abbas and the palestinian leadership, as far as i know, their declared position is we will not accept that demand on us. >> rose: what is the hardest thing? is it east jerusalem as the capital of a palestinian state the nonnegotiable demand you have that is more important than return -- is it more important than borders? is it more important than all the other issues that you talked about in terms of a palestinian state? is east jerusalem the most crucial issue? >> i totally agree with secretary of state when he says that all the final status issues, the six of them are enter wind, and they are interconnected .. you cannot say one is more important than the other. you need to have a package of an
agreement to agree on the borders which would basically be the 1967 mutually breed adjustment of the borders. you agree on the security issue. you agree on jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with some arrangement between these two capitals, and you agree on a just agreed upon solution to the refugee question and of course settlements are illegal but agree on how to deal with these illegal things. >> rose: when you talk about semis a uh i don't know, prime minister netanyahu agreed to negotiate with secretary clinton, you know, a freeze on settlements. >> uh-huh. >> rose: and they believe it got them nowhere. >> but, you know, with president barack obama and his, in he first term there was an agreement for a limited freeze, moratorium they called it. >> rose: that would be second -- >> for ten months. okay. an then we negotiated during the last month, it is not that we
did not negotiate during the freeze, we did negotiate, we had three sessions of negotiations, one in washington, d.c., one in charm a shay and one in the residence of president netanyahu for a total of more than 15 hours of negotiations. and these negotiations did not produce significant results during that last month of the freeze of settlements. of course, we asked and also the americans at that time asked for an extension of the moratorium, hoping that there will be a change of attitude by the israeli government but let me just say this thing. if you want to end the occupation that started in 1967 in order to allow for the independence of the state of palestine and therefore to have two states living next to each other in peace and harmony, why you should be preparing your society for the eventualality of
removing everything that was created .. by this occupation, not to increase settlement, not to build more settlements, not to bring morissetteers will, because if you do that, this is in concrete contradiction, complete contradiction with your articulation verbally of saying yes, you want to have peace with the palestinians, your action is saying you don't want to have peace with the palestinians. >> rose: so as they are now talking about 1,200 morissetteers will. >> yes. ask any person with common sense, if i negotiate with the israel will i see to end the occupation to allow for the two-state solution and they continue building more settlements and expanding settlements, are they truly going to separate and to withdraw to allow for the independence of the state of palestine? shouldn't it make sense that at least once we negotiate, stop settlement activities to give us incentive and indication that you are serious about ending this occupation, to have our
independence, but if you negotiate with us and you continue doing this illegal thing, your action is telling us you are buying time and you don't want really to terminate in occupation, and the set he are going to win the day. it is something for the israeli leaders to decide upon, although, all this time we went back to negotiation without them freezing settlement because that is another indication of how president abbas and the palestinian leadership are committed to peace. >> rose: there was some release of prisoners, was there not? >> a release of prisoners have nothing to do with the settlements. the release of prisoners was -- >> rose:. >> it has to do with good faith and we delivered on that. we promised the secretary of state, president abbas did we would not seek joining u.n. agencies and being a party to so many conventions. we are honoring that commitment in exchange of the release of prisoners in, but we did not
make a commitment to -- or an agreement to the israelis that in exchange of releasing the prisoners they can build semis, we never made that agreement, settlements are illegal will is a global consensus in characterizing settlements are illegal. what we are saying, stop this illegal behavior while we negotiate to give us concrete example that you are negotiating -- >> rose: will also argument the more settlements make it difficult for a prime minister to withdraw because there will be a fierce battle, a fierce domestic battle. >> this is exactly what i am saying. the more he continued the settlement activities, then regardless of what he says about peace between us and them, his action speaks louder than his articulation that he will not be interested in withdrawing. >> rose: you understand clearly from what you have said the israelis need for security. of course you do. >> yes. >> and they talk about that. i mean peed was here and
palestinians want different thing, palestinians want peace and justice, israelis want peace and security. how can that security be guaranteed? how do you build the confidence that that security, when you are now more powerful, will not be threatened? >> first of all, the best security there is is peace. >> is peace. >> the development of technology and with the issue of the iranians about nuclear weapons, and rockets, if -- how can you guarantee the security of the state of israel in the age of rockets, ballistic rockets and nuclear weapons? i think peace is the best guarantee. in addition to that we are saying the united states of america as your closest strategic ally let them be there in our side of our state to be
there with the nato forces, with other forces in any form or shape yet you believe in similar to what we have in the sinai desert between egypt and israel since the signing of the -- of, you know, the camp david agreements. >> rose: right. >> if you do not trust the united states of america to give you security, who else is going to be the security? but to use a pretext that you don't trust anyone and therefore you want to continue the occupation of the palestinian land it means you don't want to enthe occupation and you don't want to have peace with us. they have to make up their mind. >> rose: so you believe -- >> the best thing on the table admission to peace is the presence of the american forces to be between us and them, all of them on our side of the border. >> rose: which the israelis say is unacceptable to them so far. >> ten how are they going to. >> rose: guarantee their security? when you look at how -- do you believe the israelis that the palestinians have
offered the israelis a clear negotiating partner who can deliver on their side of the promises they make? >> i believe so. we see this argument presented by them all the time. >> rose: i know. >> they will never have better, more committed leadership to peace more than president mahmoud abbas. he is committed to a, to the core to peace and to nonviolence and to finding a peaceful solution to the situation and to the conflict between us and the israelis. now, if they refuse to have peace with a leader like abbas then it seems to me they have to face possibly the nature of more extremists, including those like in hamas, and if they tell us
that they can reach peace with such leaders, one would say they are not serious. they are joking. >> rose: but speaking of -- >> but let me also say they say often, i face this with the israeli am bass for at the u.n., he said abbas does not represent all the palestinians because he represents only the west bank and he doesn't represent the gaza strip because there is hamas is in control can chen when we start working on reconciliation with hamas they say we will not negotiate with abbas? why? because he has part of his government are people like hamas people and, therefore, we will not negotiate with them. so that we are losing whatever -- if we are separated we don't represent all the palestinians, if we are united we don't want to negotiate with you because, you know, you have hamas as part of your political system. speaking of abbas there is this historical fact. former israeli prime minister,
omir, to this day he says he negotiated a deal that would have delivered to the palestinian much of what they want and abbas saysly take it back and then they didn't accept it. and that was one more example of, you know, camp david was as other things have where in the end the palestinians would not accept what many people thought was a reasonable solution. >> that is partially accurate. what happened to prime minister olmert, he was deposed from the position of premiere, premiership, had he stayed longer, then there would have been a better chance of continuing the discussions between him and president abbas and perhaps reaching an agreement. >> rose: i thought they reached an agreement. >> he suggested construct if the ideas. >> rose: all of the on all the issues of contention. >> but when the two leeshdz meet and they have a discussion and
you draw something like this and you say that this is perhaps the borders and put it on a piece possess paper like that, that is not negotiated -- these are good ideas you are willing to discuss percentages of the swap and, you know, to discuss issues related to jerusalem, then you know you don't find in that moment on something that it is not a document. but had, you know, prime minister olmert stayed in office for a longer period of time there would have been a bigger chance of reaching an agreement between the two leaders. the same thing of entaba. >> there there were construct if the developments on many issues but prime minister barack lost the election to -- >> rose: before that coming out of camp david. >> but they went from camp david to continue the discussion in intaba and in entaba they
reached more advanced ideas, more construct if the ideas beyond the camp david but unfortunately, prime minister lost the election. >> rose: finally, this, tell me what is different about john kerry? and he ideas? than all the ideas that have been proposed before? what is different? >> i don't really know, but i know that secretary of state kerry may be, maybe he has a possibility to have a legacy before he finishes his public life. >> rose: does your leadership believe that, that they are seeing thing, they are hearing things that says to them, there is a possibility here? >> yes. they haven't seen a leader that is visiting the region with such intensity, with such determination, and with such a positive attitude and patience to deal with foreign issues and
trying to find a solutions to them and trying to bring to the table other leaders, including arab leaders and also including beyond the arab region, and perhaps it is something to develop in the iranian front with five plus one. >> rose: right. >> and with geneva 2. >> rose: and syria. >> then he will be bringing a larger number of players to the table to say that if we were able to find a diplomatic, peaceful solution to the iranian file and to find a diplomatic, peaceful solution to the syrian situation, why shouldn't we succeed in finding a diplomatic, peaceful solution to the israeli-palestinian situation the. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> you are very welcome. >> rose: god to see you. thanks for joining us. see you next time. >> captioning sponsored by rose communications
>> explore new worlds and new ideas through programs like this made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> now is the moment of power. if not now, when? >> announcer: board-certified physician, mind-body expert, and teacher dr. deepak chopra has combined the latest breakthroughs in science straight from leading research centers with wisdom from the ages. >> knowing what you're really hungry for is the key to losing weight, enjoying more vitality and feeling more joy. >> announcer: join dr. deepak chopra and learn how to permanently lose weight, gain emotional well-being, and reduce the risks of dreaded